Hi Bob,
it's great your 'cogs are turning' and constructs are building.

1)You asked:"in terms of the above quote would you
frame the issue in terms of Bill attempting to change the
corporate constructs of the PCP list, while in the process
violating these constructs?"

In my view (Peter's may be slightly different) Bill may have attempted to
change (or was at least construed this way) the corporate constructs too much.
This would lead to losing the perceived identity of the corporation. If the
corporation was an individual self, this would relate to threat in PCP terms.

2)This brings us to a further issue with corporate construing. Corporate
construing is a notion which is intended to delimit rather than discount both
personal construct psychology and social constructionism. As theorists, do we
understand corporate constructs with personal construct theory constructs, ie
from within personal construct theory? If so a corporate construct would have
to be bipolar. If we claim it does not, does a corporate construct then still
deserve to be called a "construct"?

3) Bob also stated
"Presumably the corporate constructs would have to be shared by a majority of
list members and be different to personal constructs? Or do we begin to talk
about individual personal corporate constructs"
The use of corporate constructs, ie corporate construing would be the shared
action which leads to the perceived identity of the corporation. Individuals
can construe corporate constructs. The sensus communis when using the
corporate constructs together is part of what defines them as corporate.
Corporate constructs cannot involve private language. A concrete example may
be dancers and the dance. The dancers are individuals (persons with selves).
The dance is an activity involving the corporate constructs of "knowing that"
a dance involves XYZ, "knowing how" to dance, and "knowing from" the
corporation of dance. The corporate construct encapsulates these common
processes, which when in action give the corporation its perceived identity.
When the dance stops there are dancers but no dance. The individuals may have
personal constructs about dancing. The shared processes involve corporate
constructs. The action together is the decision of the corporation. The
corporation however is not an entity 'which determines' like language
'constitutes in social constructionism'.
Hence, corporate constructs do not sit with all of the assumptions/defining
characteristics of Kellian personal constructs.

Interested in further co-efforts in understanding. Have we formed a corporate
construct corporation?

Peter Caputi wrote, "I would like to note that corporate
constructs can be changed modified by individual. For example,
an individual may make a recommendation to a corporation that
ultimately changes some of the rules of that corporation. A
theorist may look at Kelly's work from a new perspective and
provide an insighth that changes how others view Kelly's work.

So I would argue that individual do have the potential to
influence corporate construing in a significant way."

No dispute here, otherwise a corporate construct would largely be
impermeable/resistant to change. After all, they have come from
some where. If we go back to the original question of whether
corporate constructs might explain the controversy surrounding
the posts of Bill Chambers: in terms of the above quote would you
frame the issue in terms of Bill attempting to change the
corporate constructs of the PCP list, while in the process
violating these constructs?

There has been a number of posts recently regarding group
construing. It would be interesting to explore whether there are
corporate constructs associated with the list/lists (what would
be the elements?). Presumably the corporate constructs would
have to be shared by a majority of list members and be different
to personal constructs? Or do we begin to talk about individual
personal corporate constructs.

If I sound too obscure on this, it is the cogs turning over
trying to understand this one.